The force-field theory of change proposes that two sets of opposing forces determine how the process of organizational change will take place. It is one of the very first theories that is taught in an organization change class all over the world. Therefore, as a student of organizational studies or as a manager in a corporate office overseeing change processes, you need to know about it.
Who developed this theory?
Kurt Lewin developed this theory of organizational change. Lewin was a German-American psychologist. He is famously known as the father of social psychology. Lewin has made significant contributions in the field of psychology, organizational studies and developmental studies. His work earned him much fame and he was the 18th most cited psychologist of the 20th century.
Force-field theory
Organizational change has become a survival strategy for many firms. In other words, a firm that cannot adapt to the ever-changing situation is doomed to misery, while firms which are quick to embrace change often have a competitive edge. However, organizational change is not an easy process in any way. Major changes, like re-structuring or mergers and acquisitions, require co-operation and acceptance across all levels of organization. It is not only the top management who determine the success of a change attempt. Employees across the organizational hierarchy need to change.
It is a common observation that a group of employees would endorse the change while another group of employees would oppose it. The force-field theory states that the dynamics between these opposing forces determine the overall success of the change process.
Therefore, the 2 opposing forces are:
- Resistance to the change
- Forces that accept the change
Resistance to change
These are the inertia factors which resist the change. Such forces want to maintain status quo and challenge any attempt for change. There could be several possible reasons for which employees oppose change.
Firstly, change is accompanied by uncertainties and ambiguities. Human beings, in general, are uncomfortable with uncertainties. Hence, they try to justify the status quo and oppose any kind of change.
Secondly, organizational changes are often accompanied by changes in organizational roles and structure. This implies that many existing jobs would require skill up-gradation or become irrelevant. Hence, many employees would need to learn new skills and some would lose their jobs. Both these scenarios may be stressful.
Management often finds it extremely difficult to deal with resistors to change. Many times, they have to scrap the change attempt or it takes a very long time to implement the new systems.
Forces that accept the change
While some people in the organization oppose change, some people are totally for change. Such people believe in constant learning and up-gradation. They understand the dynamic business context and know that change is often necessary for survival.
If we analyse in detail, a change scenario can be of two types. The first is the reactive change. This change occurs in response to some environmental event that demands change or the organization will perish.
Let us consider an example. Suppose you own a restaurant in a prime location of your city. Owing to your location and the extremely tasty food you serve, you get all lot of footfall. You do not take orders online because your dining hall is always full. However, then the Covid-19 pandemic breaks in. People are not stepping out of their homes for dining out. What will you do? If you do not start taking online orders, your business will perish. In such a situation, if you propose an online delivery system for your employees, they would be willing to change. This is an example of reactive change, in which your business would stop being profitable if you do not change. It is easier to get buy-in in case of a reactive change.
The second kind of change is the proactive one. Such a change is self-initiated by some of the employees because they have foresight. They can apprehend the future market scenario and plan ahead. In the above example, if the owner wanted to introduce a delivery system without the pandemic while his dining hall was always full, the employees probably would not have been willing to change and take up additional responsibilities.
You may read about some other examples of change like automation here.
3 stages of change
In the force-field theory, Lewin did not consider the difference between a reactive and proactive change. He simply proposed a 3 stage model for organizational change.
Stage 1: Unfreezing
The first stage of any successful organizational change is the initial communication about the change. As a leader, it is your responsibility to communicate the passion and the need for change. All key stakeholders need to understand and identify with the need for the change.
This stage is usually accompanied by a lot of uncertainties as employees do not clearly understand the implications of the change for their lives. Many people would be afraid and anxious that they will lose their jobs, have to re-locate or receive lesser compensation.
Stage 2: Change
After the initial unease created by the unfreezing stage, organizations move to the second stage. The proposed changes are implemented here. Uncertainty reduces in this stage because the impact of the change becomes clear here.
Your organization might be employee-friendly. However, some of the employees are negatively impacted by the change. They may be shifted to new departments or laid-off. The top-management team must ensure trust. It is their responsibility to communicate every major decision to the employees. They should not make false promises and reveal harsh truths to them. Managers should not delay communications and must fulfill any promise that they have made.
Stage 3: Refreeze
This is the consolidation stage where the proposed change has been implemented by the organization. The employees have internalized the changed norms and systems as the new normal. In addition, there is no more additional resistance to the change.
Role of the forces
At every stage of the change, the two forces act within the organization. The forces for the change enhance the speed and acceptance for the change. On the other hand, the resisting forces weaken the efforts by the management.
According to the force-field theory, there are 3 options for the management to make the change successful:
- To weaken the resisting forces. This implies that the management approaches the prominent and influential resistors and convince them that the change is necessary and not harmful for any stakeholder.
- To strengthen the forces for the change. This implies that the management incentives those who favor the change.
- To weaken the resisting forces and strengthen the forces for the change at the same time.
Which is the best policy?
There is no one right answer for this. The management needs to analyze the situation and decide. A rule of thumb would be to do both at the same time. In addition, management should convince influential people first. For instance, they need to obtain the buy-in of trade union leaders if the change impacts laborers.
A thought on the “Force Field Theory of Change”, when managers are incentivizing employees, it has to be done according to the guidelines of the organization, so that the “incentives” are not considered to be “bribes”.